The work done by James and others to advance the cause of medicine through Wikipedia is very laudable. None other than the Duke of Manchester has been promoting awareness of this initiative, and it is clear that the Duke in question has been expressing their views on this elsewhere for a long time. It is not quite clear why the Duke would not now broaden their enthusiasm to include contributing to Wikipedia as well, but perhaps we shall find out? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read "Online Medicine's external peer-review". Is it not "Open Medicine's external peer-review" ? Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that blooper; thanks Cantons. Tony(talk) 02:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The journal credits the images to Commons, but doesn't the attribution need to be to the specific author? czar ♔ 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This version provides links [1]. I have emailed them to correct the other version already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be curious to know what kinds of structure/style changes were needed in the reformatting—could be a useful reflection piece for the rest of the community interested in this type of publishing. czar ♔ 18:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They wanted more complicated language to be used. Most of the rest of the changes were combined into Wikipedia. One can see it here [2]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen that, but I was under the impression that there were changes between what I see on Wikipedia and what was published in the journal, no? Are there any content differences between the two at the moment? czar ♔ 20:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the published version has used more complicated language than the Wikipedia version dose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so to my original comment, I'd be interested in knowing what exactly is more complicated about it, if such a piece were to be written czar ♔ 23:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about contributors to the page that are not listed as authors on the paper? I didn't do an exhaustive survey, but it did look like there were some minor contributions by editors not among the paper's authors. Also, I just wanted to link to PLOS Computational Biology's Topic Pages. It's a similar program -- I'm sure the authors of this article know about it, but many readers probably don't. Klortho (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are listed as contributors in the paper with a link. There is a certain not set in stone bar for authorship below which one is no longer an author. Was aware of the computation bio work. These articles were written off wiki than added to wiki rather than written on wiki and published in a journal from my understanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the nomination for Admin process could benefit from searching out good candidates rather than relying on the dwindling number of self-noms. SFB 23:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there an MfD template, linking to a nonexistent deletion discussion, on this page? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi הסרפד, that would be because someone is going on a deletion rampage of quotation templates. You may voice your thoughts here. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 18:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
